Did Jesus celebrate the Holiday that commemorates the Maccabees?

[Origen]

Apparently they all did accept them

I won't wait for primary sources because I already know nothing will be forthcoming.

 

[Andrew]

I won't wait for primary sources because I already know nothing will be forthcoming.

Show me evidence of the contrary that you claim, my evidence is that it got into our Bible, whats yours?

 

[Josiah]

Hey Josiah, how did any of the books of Maccabees make it into our Bibles if the Christians rejected it?

Who/what put any of them IN the Bible? Prove any such book "made it in to OUR Bibles?"


Just list for us the ECUMENICAL Council (the authoritative PAN-CHRISTIAN meeting of ALL bishops and ALL dioceses - both Eastern and Western, Greek and Latin) that officially, formally stated "One of the books with the word 'Maccabees' in the moniker IS canonical, inerrant, verbally-inscripturated words of God." Give the name of that Council, the date of that declaration and the verbatim statement of it.... And then give evidence that you docilicly ACCEPT the authority and declarations of all such meetings - and not just pick and choose here and there if you happen to agree.


Not that you can find 3 people before the year 400 who referred to some book.... or quoted some book.... or used some book.... or even called such "SCRIPTURE" because that's irrelevant to what Christianity did or what Christians held or did. Entirely irrelevant. And of course, as you know, we can apply that to a LOT of books that you do not accept as Scripture.

my evidence is that it got into our Bible,

... you haven't yet given any evidence. Just state which of the Seven Ecumenical Councils declared "it" (whatever "it" is) is The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). And that you accept the authority of these seven Councils and why all Christians must.




Now, back to the claim: That one of the Maccabee books MUST be the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God BECAUSE it's one of the books that records an historical event which Jews even today celebrate.

You've presented NOTHING to substantiate it. You just keep posting that all Jews and Christians accepted it as Scripture so it was Scripture.

YES, Jesus and all Jews today celebrate an event which many books (including at least one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker) record. Yup. No one doubts that. I had a Jewish friend in college who celebrated that event. Now, How does the reality that many Jews celebrate an event PROVE that every history book that mentions that event THEREFORE must be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) and must be seen as such by Christians and in every tome with "BIBLE' on the cover? How does the reality that Jesus and my friend David celebrate the event prove that books that speak of that event MUST therefore be canon Scripture? Brother, it seems to me that an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore be accepted as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, and it being mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians.




.

 

[Origen]

Show me evidence of the contrary that you claim, my evidence is that it got into our Bible, whats yours?

All of the following provide canon lists and all leave out the books of the Maccabees.

Melito
Cyril of Jerusalem
Athanasius of Alexandria
Gregory of Nazianzus
Amphilochius of Iconium
Epiphanius of Salamis
Jerome

O.T. Canon Lists

It is clear that many people have an interest in which books belong in the O.T. canon. However, I have not seen is anyone post the historical or manuscript evidence. I will first divided the lists into Greek and Latin sources starting with earliest ones first. The manuscript evidence also be...

christianityhaven.com

And these are not the only ones.

 

[Josiah]

Because you and Josiah claim that they weren't accepted by the early Christians

Friend, you've not been reading my posts. I NEVER made any such claim.

What I've noted is that you have not substantiated that first and/or second and/or third and/or forth Maccabees was accepted by Judaism or Christianity. You and Nathan just keep repeating the claim that "it" was - but never have even tried to substantiate that, as if the claim is thus an indisputable fact exempt from accountability.


Brother, it is NO ONE'S responsibility to disprove your claim. You have epistemology reversed. It is YOUR responsibility to prove it true. And friend, questions substantiate only one thing: your ability to ask it.



Now again, brother,
No one denies that there were writings in ancient times.
No one denies that folks sometimes read writings. Even used them and quoted them.
No one denies that some writings contained history, even accurate history, even history that involved Jews and/or Christians.
No one denies that you can find a tiny number of people - even famous people - who called some of these 'Scripture."
But none of that proves that Judaism and/or Christianity accepted first and/or second and/or third and/or forth Maccabees as such. Or even that more than a dozen people on the planet at the time personally held to such an opinion;. You know that. We all do.



IF you want to substantiate that Judaism and Jews accepted a writing as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) equal to the Five Books of Moses you need either 1) some OFFICIAL, formal, authoritative declaration of some ruling Body of that entire religion, something PAN-JEWISH that all Jews accepted and accept. OR you need proof that every Jewish PERSON so accepted it at the time. Not 2 or 5 but all of them. #2 is of course impossible. I'm not sure, but for #1, I'm not sure there ever was or is now such a body.

IF you want to substantiate that Christianity and Christians accepted a writing as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) equal to say Paul's Epistle to the Romans you need either 1) some OFFICIAL, formal, authoritative declaration of some ruling Body of that entire religion, something PAN-Christian (East and West, Greek and Latin.... from England to Egypt) that all Christians accepted (the only possible candidate for that would be one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils) and accept. OR you need proof that every Christian PERSON so accepted it at the time. Not 2 or 5 but all of them. #2 is of course impossible. I'm not sure, but you could look to official rulings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. I'll save you the time. I've studied them all. None of them said or discussed ANYTHING about the canon.


See post 243

IMO, the reason Nathan won't offer anything to substantiate his claim is that (as he knows) he doesn't have anything. He has his opinion (which he states as unaccountable FACT that's true so it's true) and circular reasoning from that. YES, he can show people read and used and quoted some book..... yes he can show there's accurate history contained there.... yes, he can show it was translated into other languages... yes, he can show 1 or 2 people who called it "Scripture." But brother, the same can be said of many other books and NONE of that substantiates his point, a point you echo for reasons I do not know.



Now, Andrew, I agree that at at least one of the Maccabee books is good reading, important reading!! I agree with Martin Luther and the Anglican Church that it SHOULD be in tomes and in the Lectionary! I agree it is unfortunate that many modern American, Canadian and European "Evangelicals" are not only ignorant of it but blatantly repudiate it. My Lutheran church did an extensive study of it during our Sunday Pastor's Class.... the LCMS publishing house has study material of it. But friend, none of that establishes that JUDAISM and/or CHRISTIANITY ever decreed that it is The inerrant, canonical, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God. That, brother, is a whole other enchilada.... and one you cannot prove is the case.





Now, back to the claim: That one of the Maccabee books MUST be the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Christians must agree BECAUSE it's one of the books that records an historical event which Jews even today celebrate.

You've presented NOTHING to substantiate it. You just keep posting that all Jews and Christians accepted it as Scripture so it was Scripture.

YES, Jesus and all Jews today celebrate an event which many books (including at least one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker) record. Yup. No one doubts that. I had a Jewish friend in college who celebrated that event. Now, How does the reality that many Jews celebrate an event PROVE that every history book that mentions that event THEREFORE must be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) and must be seen as such by Christians and in every tome with "BIBLE' on the cover? How does the reality that Jesus and my friend David celebrate the event prove that books that speak of that event MUST therefore be canon Scripture? Brother, it seems to me that an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore be accepted as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, and it being mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians.






.

 

[pinacled]

Friend, you've not been reading my posts. I NEVER made any such claim.

What I've noted is that you have not substantiated that first and/or second and/or third and/or forth Maccabees was accepted by Judaism or Christianity. You and Nathan just keep repeating the claim that "it" was - but never have even tried to substantiate that, as if the claim is thus an indisputable fact exempt from accountability.


Brother, it is NO ONE'S responsibility to disprove your claim. You have epistemology reversed. It is YOUR responsibility to prove it true. And friend, questions substantiate only one thing: your ability to ask it.



Now again, brother,
No one denies that there were writings in ancient times.
No one denies that folks sometimes read writings. Even used them and quoted them.
No one denies that some writings contained history, even accurate history, even history that involved Jews and/or Christians.
No one denies that you can find a tiny number of people - even famous people - who called some of these 'Scripture."
But none of that proves that Judaism and/or Christianity accepted first and/or second and/or third and/or forth Maccabees as such. Or even that more than a dozen people on the planet at the time personally held to such an opinion;. You know that. We all do.



IF you want to substantiate that Judaism and Jews accepted a writing as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) equal to the Five Books of Moses you need either 1) some OFFICIAL, formal, authoritative declaration of some ruling Body of that entire religion, something PAN-JEWISH that all Jews accepted and accept. OR you need proof that every Jewish PERSON so accepted it at the time. Not 2 or 5 but all of them. #2 is of course impossible. I'm not sure, but for #1, I'm not sure there ever was or is now such a body.

IF you want to substantiate that Christianity and Christians accepted a writing as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) equal to say Paul's Epistle to the Romans you need either 1) some OFFICIAL, formal, authoritative declaration of some ruling Body of that entire religion, something PAN-Christian (East and West, Greek and Latin.... from England to Egypt) that all Christians accepted (the only possible candidate for that would be one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils) and accept. OR you need proof that every Christian PERSON so accepted it at the time. Not 2 or 5 but all of them. #2 is of course impossible. I'm not sure, but you could look to official rulings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. I'll save you the time. I've studied them all. None of them said or discussed ANYTHING about the canon.


See post 243

IMO, the reason Nathan won't offer anything to substantiate his claim is that (as he knows) he doesn't have anything. He has his opinion (which he states as unaccountable FACT that's true so it's true) and circular reasoning from that. YES, he can show people read and used and quoted some book..... yes he can show there's accurate history contained there.... yes, he can show it was translated into other languages... yes, he can show 1 or 2 people who called it "Scripture." But brother, the same can be said of many other books and NONE of that substantiates his point, a point you echo for reasons I do not know.




Now, back to the claim: That one of the Maccabee books MUST be the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Christians must agree BECAUSE it's one of the books that records an historical event which Jews even today celebrate.

You've presented NOTHING to substantiate it. You just keep posting that all Jews and Christians accepted it as Scripture so it was Scripture.

YES, Jesus and all Jews today celebrate an event which many books (including at least one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker) record. Yup. No one doubts that. I had a Jewish friend in college who celebrated that event. Now, How does the reality that many Jews celebrate an event PROVE that every history book that mentions that event THEREFORE must be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) and must be seen as such by Christians and in every tome with "BIBLE' on the cover? How does the reality that Jesus and my friend David celebrate the event prove that books that speak of that event MUST therefore be canon Scripture? Brother, it seems to me that an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore be accepted as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, and it being mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians.






.

[ YES, Jesus and all Jews today celebrate an event which many books (including at least one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker) record. Yup. No one doubts that. I had a Jewish friend in college who celebrated that event. Now, How does the reality that many Jews celebrate an event PROVE that every history book that mentions that event THEREFORE must be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)]

Interesting form of repetition.

Why do you assume that jesus celebrated the feast afore mentioned?

 

[NathanH83]

Really EVERYTHING!!! "They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword." Cite the passage for the section in bold.


Opinions without evidence are pure peculation. So again I point out that a New Testament author may quote a source without accepting it as Scripture. There is more than one example found in the N.T. to prove the point. Thus even if it is a reference to 2 Maccabees that does not prove the author accepted it as Scripture. Nothing you have said demonstrate any part of the above to be false.

You’re still cherry picking. Look at all the stuff in Hebrews 11 that references scripture. The context implies that this reference to Maccabees is scripture. It’s no big wonder that the early church declared it to be scripture.

 

[NathanH83]

All of the following provide canon lists and all leave out the books of the Maccabees.

Melito
Cyril of Jerusalem
Athanasius of Alexandria
Gregory of Nazianzus
Amphilochius of Iconium
Epiphanius of Salamis
Jerome

O.T. Canon Lists

It is clear that many people have an interest in which books belong in the O.T. canon. However, I have not seen is anyone post the historical or manuscript evidence. I will first divided the lists into Greek and Latin sources starting with earliest ones first. The manuscript evidence also be...

christianityhaven.com

And these are not the only ones.

Those people were siding with the unbelieving Jews. Melito, for example said that he got his list from the Jews. So did Jerome. This only proves the case further that the Jews who lived after Christ took those books out of their Bibles. That’s why they convinced some Christians to reject them.

But the early church councils declared that these books were given to them by the disciples, and should be accepted as canonical. That means that the Jews who lived before Christ accepted those books.

 

[Origen]

You’re still cherry picking.

And you still have no answer. There is a simple way to solve the problem.

You stated:

Everything else in Hebrews 11 is from the Bible

You said EVERYTHING else n Hebrews 11 is from the Bible.

"They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword." Cite the passage for the section in bold.

 

[Origen]

Those people were siding with the unbelieving Jews.

Sure, sure! Anyone who does not agree with your view is siding with the unbelieving Jews. That is nothing more than your attempt to discredit those who do not agree with you.

In order to accept your view one would have to believe that all those men (i.e. Melito, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus. Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome and others as well):

(1) were all deceived by unbelieving Jews,
(2) which took would have had to taken place over hundreds of years,
(3) and all of them were too dumb to know it.

Sorry but such a view stretches the concept beyond of credibility beyond it limits. Sounds more like a conspiracy theory.

 

[NathanH83]

And you still have no answer. There is a simple way to solve the problem.

You stated:

You said EVERYTHING else n Hebrews 11 is from the Bible.

"They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword." Cite the passage for the section in bold.

You’re just going to completely ignore the rest of the chapter?

I’ve always gotten the impression that this story of men being tortured is coming from a book of the Bible that I should have read about, but for some mysterious reason it has been hidden from me. And I just didn’t know what it was.

Well, I’m thankful that now I know what it’s talking about.

If I was reading the King James back in the 1600’s, it would not have been such a mystery. Because I would have seen that marginal note, and been able to flip right in over to the Apocryphal section and read the story.

But modern Bible printers have decided to stop printing that section, and decided to remove the marginal note. So the modern reader is completely clueless as to who the tortured men are.

Thankfully, now I know.... with no thanks to Bible-butchers like yourself.

 

[NathanH83]

Sure, sure! Anyone who does not agree with your view is siding with the unbelieving Jews. That is nothing more than your attempt to discredit those who do not agree with you.

In order to accept your view one would have to believe that all those men (i.e. Melito, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus. Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome and others as well):

(1) were all deceived by unbelieving Jews,
(2) which took would have had to taken place over hundreds of years,
(3) and all of them were too dumb to know it.

Sorry but such a view stretches the concept beyond of credibility beyond it limits. Sounds more like a conspiracy theory.

The early church. Not me.
I’m not the one who made the decisions in the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. The early church made their decision clear with no help from me.

 

[Origen]

I’m not the one who made the decisions in the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.

Where exactly did the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage state Melito, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus. Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Jerome are all wrong because they followed the unbelieving Jews?

 

[Origen]

You’re just going to completely ignore the rest of the chapter?

The rest of the chapter, just like you, cannot answer my question.

You said EVERYTHING else n Hebrews 11 is from the Bible.

"They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword." Cite the passage for the section in bold. Check the 1611 KVJ maybe there is a note.

 

[NathanH83]

Where exactly did the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage state Melito, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus. Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Jerome are all wrong because they followed the unbelieving Jews?

They declared which books belong in the Bible, and these councils included the books that Jerome,Athanasius, Melito, etc. all said were apocryphal.

Those guys said these books don’t belong, and the councils said yes they do.

 

[NathanH83]

The rest of the chapter, just like you, cannot answer my question.

You said EVERYTHING else n Hebrews 11 is from the Bible.

"They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword." Cite the passage for the section in bold. Check the 1611 KVJ maybe there is a note.

You’re not really proving anything. The vast majority of what’s referenced in Hebrews 11 can be found in the Old Testament. When it mentions the tortured men, one would expect that to be included in the Old Testament as well.

As for the people sawn in two, perhaps that’s talking about the Maccabean martyrs, or perhaps it’s talking about Isaiah, as someone suggested earlier that there’s an extra-biblical work that says Isaiah was sawn in two.

Given the fact that Jude mentioned things from both the Assumption of Moses and the book of Enoch, then those two works might have been in the Jewish canon before Christ.

If that’s the case, then perhaps this work that says Isaiah was sawn in two might have been included in the Jewish canon before the time of Christ as well.

Whatever the case, the context of Hebrews 11 suggests that both the “tortured men” reference and the “sawn in two” reference are something found in scripture.

 

[Josiah]

They declared which books belong in the Bible, and these councils included the books that Jerome,Athanasius, Melito, etc. all said were apocryphal.

Those guys said these books don’t belong, and the councils said yes they do.

You make two REMARKABLE mistakes....


1. You ASSUME that if the word "COUNCIL" is used, it therefore MUST be a pan-Christian, ecumenical, binding, authoritative body for all Christians. Is it possible to be more laughable? More absurd? More silly in your assumption? There are perhaps MILLIONS of church council meetings every month - perhaps just in the USA. My parish has one on the First Thursday of every month. It's called the "CHURCH COUNCIL." But is it ecumenical - including every Christian bishop, every diocese? No, just our parish. Is it binding beyond our parish? No. Last month the CHURCH COUNCIL decided to buy a new photocopier, so is every Christian parish on the planet Earth ergo required to buy a new copier? Did yours? THINK, my brother! Hello, McFly! THINK. None of those little, obscure "councils" you note (long forgotten, little known until the Catholic Church dug them up in the 16th Century) were ecumenical meetings. None of them were binding (certainly not outside that diocese). And none of them said "these are the canonical Scriptures" they at most said "these are the books that may be used for the Lectionary of the Sunday Mass for this jurisdiction, for now anyway." Apples and oranges.


2. You want EVERYONE to consider ALL and ANY meeting of the Latin Church as fully binding.... definitive.... authoritative.... ecumenical. But you don't. I don't know if you docilicly accept ANY meeting of ANY diocese of the Catholic Church.... perhaps you only accept ANY meeting when you just happen to personally, currently agree with it - thus you being the authority and applauding meetings that echo you. Since you don't accept all CHURCH COUNCIL meetings (did you buy a new photocopier?) ... since you aren't docilicly obedient to all meetings of the Latin church, it's just beyond silly to require everyone else does what you don't do.




Now, back to the claim: That one of the Maccabee books MUST be the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and all Christians must agree BECAUSE it's one of the books that records an historical event which Jews even today celebrate.

You've presented NOTHING to substantiate it. You just keep posting that all Jews and Christians accepted it as Scripture so it was Scripture.

YES, generally Jews then and now celebrate an event which many books (including at least one of the books with "Maccabees" in the moniker) record. Yup. No one doubts that. I had a Jewish friend in college who celebrated that event. Now, How does the reality that many Jews celebrate an event PROVE that every history book that mentions that event THEREFORE must be The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) and must be seen as such by Christians and in every tome with "BIBLE' on the cover? How does the reality that Jesus and my friend David celebrate the event prove that books that speak of that event MUST therefore be canon Scripture? Brother, it seems to me that an historical event can be true WITHOUT it being mandated that all accept any book that mentions it as therefore be accepted as the inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, and it being mandated to be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover or used by Jews or Christians.




.

 

[Origen]

You’re not really proving anything.

I am proving exactly just what I set out to prove. You cannot provide primary sources\objective evidence for your claims.

 

[Origen]

They declared which books belong in the Bible, and these councils included the books that Jerome,Athanasius, Melito, etc. all said were apocryphal.

They were just men just like Melito, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus. Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Jerome and you have given no objective reason to think those men knew anymore than these men.

Those guys said these books don’t belong, and the councils said yes they do.

And even after those councils many still did not accept those books.

 

[Bluezone777]

I much rather doubt God would have a book written and then casually lose it for centuries only to turn up now. I am quite confident God is capable of having his word written down and preserved throughout the centuries as it would be imperative for Him to do so if He is to expect any of us to trust in it. I personally think any books that were getting counted as scripture then later on not counting as scripture as proof that God didn't write it and didn't want it included along those books He did write in spite of man's attempt to include books He had not written as books He did write. It doesn't mean there has to be anything wrong with the book as it simply is not one he had a hand in writing through the power of the Holy Spirit.